Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 16:22:07 06/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 22, 2000 at 17:28:07, leonid wrote: >On June 22, 2000 at 13:27:03, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On June 21, 2000 at 21:18:07, leonid wrote: >> >>>On June 21, 2000 at 19:03:40, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>> >>>>On June 21, 2000 at 17:07:06, leonid wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 21, 2000 at 13:38:41, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>If you think that material-only evaluation programs are good for anything, >>>>>>you're sadly mistaken. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I said only that material evaluation is evaluation about everything in principe. >>>>>About tactics... or just say it. I agree that in actual state of hardware it is >>>>>not enough have only material evaluation, but its importance will grow as >>>>>rapidly as hardware capacity will improve. Very soon program that have in its >>>> >>>>Only evaluating material has zero importance. Why would you do it when you can >>>>evaluate material AND positional terms with no penalty? Besides, material is >>>>just a rule of thumb, just like any positional term. Thinking that you can make >>>>a good program by only considering material is absurd, no matter how fast your >>>>computer is. >>>>-Tom >>> >>>Do we speak about my program or about general idea? If we speak about my program >>>it is not that interesting, since we will talk only about one program in >>>particular. When we speak about general idea, yes, material echange can say >>>everything. Only through the material echange you can find mate or draw. By the >>>same mean you can find all other move in the game, name it positional, tactical >>>or otherwise. We can talk how much computer power we need for the best program >>>right now to find this or other kind of move, but this is something else. Idea >>>is simple - material echange do everything and everywhere. In chess game logic >>>is enough to see everything in it from beginning up to the end. >> >>No, you're not listening. "Material exchange" (why can't you call it >>material-only search or something?) is not the only way to find mates or draws. >>In fact, you don't need to know a damn thing about material to find mates or >>draws. That's my point. As soon as you start evaluating material, why wouldn't >>you also evaluate e.g. doubled pawns at the same time? > > >Two times tried to respond on the question of doubled pawns but lost two times >my message. I hope now it will work. > >Evaluation of doubled pawns should be regarded (just as example) as two stage >search. What's the point of doing the search in 2 stages? Why not do it in 1? Everybody in the entire world except you does a "1 stage search." There are a number of things that you can cut into 2 parts, but it doesn't mean you should cut them. -Tom
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.